Surprises from the Divorce Revolution

Has no-fault divorce produced stronger marriages?

Steve Chapman | August 18, 2008

Divorce is one of those creations, like fast food and lite rock, that has more people willing to indulge in it than people willing to defend it. Back in the 1960s, easier divorce was hailed as a needed remedy for toxic relationships. But familiarity has bred contempt. In recent years, the divorce revolution has been blamed for worsening all sorts of problems without bringing happiness to people in unhappy marriages.

There's a lot of evidence that marital breakup does more social harm than good. In their 2000 book, The Case for Marriage, Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher document that adults who are married do better than singles in wealth, health, and personal satisfaction. Children living with a divorced or unwed single parent are more likely to fall into poverty, sickness, and crime than other kids.

Marriage is a good thing, most people agree, while divorce is, at best, a necessary evil. So the laws that accompanied the divorce revolution have come under fire for destroying families and weakening safeguards for spouses who keep their vows.

Waite and Gallagher argue that loose divorce laws harm even intact households by fostering chronic uncertainty. Louisiana, in line with this criticism, has gone so far as to provide a "covenant marriage" option for couples who want the protection of stricter divorce rules.

It may seem obvious that easier divorce laws make for more divorce and more insecurity. But what is obvious is not necessarily true. What two scholars have found is that when you make divorce easier to get, you may actually produce better marriages.

In the old days, anyone who wanted to escape from the trials of wedlock had to get his or her spouse to agree to a split, or else go to court to prove the partner had done something terribly wrong (such as committing adultery). The 1960s and '70s brought "no-fault" divorce, which is also known as "unilateral divorce," since either party can bring it about without the consent of the other.

The first surprise is that looser divorce laws have actually had little effect on the number of marriages that fall apart. Economist Justin Wolfers of Stanford University, in a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), found that when California passed a no-fault divorce law in 1970, the divorce rate jumped, then fell back to its old level—and then fell some more.

That was also the pattern in other states that loosened their laws. Over time, he estimates, the chance that a first marriage would break up rose by just one-fourth of one percentage point, which is next to nothing.

In short, nothing bad happened. But in another NBER paper, Wolfers and fellow economist Betsey Stevenson of the University of Pennsylvania report that in states that relaxed their divorce laws, some very good things happened: Fewer women committed suicide, and fewer were murdered by husbands or other "intimate" partners. In addition, both men and women suffered less domestic violence, compared to states that didn't change their laws.

We're not talking about tiny improvements here. Wolfers and Stevenson say that in no-fault states, there was a 10 percent drop in a woman's chance of being killed by her spouse or boyfriend. The rate of female suicide in new no-fault states fell by about 20 percent. The effect was more dramatic still for domestic violence—which "declined by somewhere between a quarter and a half between 1976 and 1985 in those states that reformed their divorce laws," according to Stevenson and Wolfers.

What could account for these surprising benefits? Something simple: A change in divorce laws alters the balance of power in a marriage, giving more leverage to the weaker or more vulnerable spouse.

If either partner can demand a divorce, each has a greater incentive to keep the other content. If an abused spouse has an open exit, some abusers—and potential abusers—will find it possible to behave themselves.

By assuring both people in a marriage that they can get out if things go badly, the looser laws can foster the sort of behavior needed to make sure things go well. Just as a driver in a small car will drive more cautiously than someone in an oversized SUV, couples faced with loose divorce laws may handle their family obligations with greater care.

No-fault divorce once looked like a remedy for bad marriages, in the same way that amputation is a remedy for a gangrenous limb. The good news is that it may prevent the disease in the first place.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Editor's Note: Steve Chapman is currently on vacation. This column was originally published in April 2004.

Comments

?|8.18.08 @ 7:08AM|#

Um...why does my ad say "Master of Arts in Diplomacy" and "International Affairs".

anarch|8.18.08 @ 7:21AM|#

International affairs increase domestic insecurity.

Elemenope|8.18.08 @ 7:24AM|#

So true. Sleeping with foreigners will fuck up your marriage.

BakedPenguin|8.18.08 @ 7:26AM|#

"In their 2000 book, The Case for Marriage, Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher document that adults who are married do better than singles in wealth, health, and personal satisfaction..."

Correlation ≠ causation. Is it marriage that 'makes' people successful, or are successful people more likely to get married?

anarch|8.18.08 @ 7:40AM|#

@LMNO, as in They Took Rrrr Jobs!

BakedPenguin|8.18.08 @ 7:43AM|#

You guys think Lonewacko was cuckolded by a Mexican? Now his ex and the Mex have formed a NorthAmericanUnion?

Episiarch|8.18.08 @ 8:01AM|#

Sleeping with foreigners will fuck up your marriage.

Yeah, but it's hella fun. Marriages are made to be fucked up anyway.

This article seems unusual for Chapman. I think he's thinking of divorcing his wife.

ktc2|8.18.08 @ 8:28AM|#

Marriage should not be a government matter at all, except for enforcing marriage contracts.

|8.18.08 @ 8:46AM|#

I get the feeling that Divorce laws will soon be revamped like bankruptcy laws were amking it very difficult to file bankruptcy.

RD

http://useurl.us/12m

|8.18.08 @ 8:51AM|#

Wow, the troll is getting a little more subtler with his spamming. Well done.

anarch|8.18.08 @ 8:52AM|#

For contrarian views, here are Chesterton's and Lewis's. And here are poignant depictions supporting the relaxation of divorce laws, religious and secular (wish I could link the texts).

If I were Catholic, it would be because of Chesterton, if I were Episcopal, it would be à la CS Lewis, and if I were secular, it would be through such portrayals as Alec Waugh's. Alas, I'm consigned to be anarch.

Nigel Watt|8.18.08 @ 9:29AM|#

John-David, he's not a troll. Joe is a troll. Jim McDouche is just a spammer.

|8.18.08 @ 9:32AM|#

"If either partner can demand a divorce, each has a greater incentive to keep the other content. If an abused spouse has an open exit, some abusers-and potential abusers-will find it possible to behave themselves."

Is there any data to back that up or did Chapman just pull that out of his ass? Maybe that is true or maybe it is not. Maybe if someone is abusive they will be abusive regardless of the difficulty of divorce. I find it difficult to beleive that people actually think "I was going to cheat on my husband or beat the shit out of my wife but with no fault divorce they could leave me so I better not do it."

More Q than A|8.18.08 @ 9:41AM|#

ktc2 | August 18, 2008, 8:28am | #
Marriage should not be a government matter at all, except for enforcing marriage contracts.

Well, you can't unilaterally back out of a contract, can you? Hmmm?

|8.18.08 @ 9:54AM|#

Well, you can't unilaterally back out of a contract, can you?

Sure you can. You just may have to incur a penalty. In the case of marriage the penalty is being accused of molesting your kids, never seeing them again, and having half your paycheck taken away.

Or contracts can be written with no penalties for unilateral dissolution. a.k.a. No-fault divorce.

Warty|8.18.08 @ 9:58AM|#

joe's not a troll, just a dick.

:-/|8.18.08 @ 9:58AM|#

Joe is a troll.

I thought joe was immune from that designation by virtue of his perseverance in recruiting absolutely no one here to his side. But perhaps that very impotence seals the deal? It's all very confusing. Shouldn't he wear a different-colored uniform or something?

Nigel Watt|8.18.08 @ 10:01AM|#

Joe enjoys getting people angry at him, as far as I can tell. That makes him a troll.

dhex|8.18.08 @ 10:04AM|#

Yeah, but it's hella fun. Marriages are made to be fucked up anyway.

that's not very romantic at all!

no-fault, at least in nj, is an excruciatingly stupid process, having watched my friend go through it; this "quick and easy" divorce requires an 18 month separation.

that's just blindingly stupid. or perhaps i heard "no fault" and translated it as "relatively simple." my bad.

RobL|8.18.08 @ 10:17AM|#

Or contracts can be written with no penalties for unilateral dissolution. a.k.a. No-fault divorce.

I think you meant:
Or contracts can be written with no penalties rewards for unilateral dissolution. a.k.a. No-fault divorce.

Shannon Love|8.18.08 @ 10:26AM|#

Economist Justin Wolfers of Stanford University, in a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), found that when California passed a no-fault divorce law in 1970, the divorce rate jumped, then fell back to its old level-and then fell some more.

I think this study may be flawed if it assumes that the laws on the books actually reflect their enforcement.

In the case of California, divorce had been relatively easy for decades due to the close proximity of nevada and its 2-6 week residency requirement. Further, the courts in California (and elsewhere) had long been granting divorces under the whole rules but using trivial pretexts e.g. grabbing an arm in argument counted as abuse.

In short, there may not have been much difference in divorce rates between 1969-1970 but the difference divorce rates between 1950 and 1970 would have been significant.

As usual, most of these issue could be fixed by making marriage contracts private. We could start the evolution towards that state by requiring all marriages to have prenup.

|8.18.08 @ 10:28AM|#

How about "no rewards or penalties."

Besides, instead of life-long binding contracts, what if marriage was a positive affirmation arrangement? Your marriage has to be renewed by both parties every year or it automatically expires. Sort of like how orphan works under copyright should work.

You could still have life-long binding contracts, if you wanted them. Marriages with binding fault requirements, open-ended but with no-fault requires, or even contracts with a non-compete clause so that your ex can't start dating your friends.

Just trying to preserve marria|8.18.08 @ 10:30AM|#

We could start the evolution towards that state by requiring all marriages to have prenup

...stipulating that all assets accrued during the marriage be burned or donated to a cause that both spouses loathe.

Shannon Love|8.18.08 @ 10:33AM|#

BakedPenguin,

Is it marriage that 'makes' people successful, or are successful people more likely to get married?

Longitudinal studies i.e. studies that track the same subjects over many years, show a conclusive correlation between marriage and economic success. If you control for variable such as starting income, education, ethnicity etc, people who remain married out perform those who divorce even though they have earning potential.

The effect is especially pronounced for the poor and lower middle class who the cost of maintaining two households on the same income crushing.

ktc2|8.18.08 @ 10:36AM|#

You know why divorce is so expensive? Cause it's WORTH IT.

Ok, seriously though.

My point was that marriage contracts should be the norm, not one-size-fits-all the state will tell you the terms of your marriage and divorce and make them up as they go along.

Episiarch|8.18.08 @ 10:36AM|#

or even contracts with a non-compete clause so that your ex can't start dating your friends

But then you can't date her friends. See where this becomes a problem?

Other Matt|8.18.08 @ 10:45AM|#

or even contracts with a non-compete clause so that your ex can't start dating your friends

But then you can't date her friends. See where this becomes a problem?

Well, given that I deal with contracts a lot, there is a cost of enforcement that may not be worth the trouble.

Shannon Love|8.18.08 @ 10:49AM|#

If either partner can demand a divorce, each has a greater incentive to keep the other content. If an abused spouse has an open exit, some abusers-and potential abusers-will find it possible to behave themselves.

If this reasoning held true, we would expect that abuse rates would decline in sync with the casualness of the relationship. In reality, we see the opposite. A woman is safest married to the biological father of her children and in most danger from her live in boyfriend.

A change in divorce laws alters the balance of power in a marriage, giving more leverage to the weaker or more vulnerable spouse.

I don't think so. Weakened marriage contracts make the economically or otherwise dependent spouse more vulnerable to exploitation because laws have simultaneously reduced the claim that one spouse has on the income of the other. The threat of "treat me nice or I take half your stuff" doesn't quite work anymore. Indeed, today we have a "do what I say or kick you out on the curb" environment. A spouse becomes more like a live in boyfriend/girlfriend who can be ejected at will.

ktc2|8.18.08 @ 10:56AM|#

Shannon,

Don't know where you live but in my experience we have progressed from "Treat me nice or I take half your stuff." to "Treat me nice, until I find someone else anyway, then I'll take half your stuff, half your income for the rest of your life and some more via child support too. That is if I'm not feeling vendictive enough to make shit up about you and have you thrown in jail."

Episiarch|8.18.08 @ 11:01AM|#

The threat of "treat me nice or I take half your stuff" doesn't quite work anymore

Wouldn't getting extortion out of the mix be a good thing? Don't you think that kind of extortionist power distorts a relationship?

|8.18.08 @ 11:13AM|#

(It's) Cheaper to Keep Her

Shannon Love|8.18.08 @ 11:15AM|#

Episiarch,

Wouldn't getting extortion out of the mix be a good thing? Don't you think that kind of extortionist power distorts a relationship?

It would if you also could simultaneously eliminate the power of "extorted" over the "extorter". If not, then you have one spouse at the economic mercy of the others.

I would argue that traditional marriage law created a higher degree of parity between the spouses. Traditional law treated marriage something like a business partnership in which one partner (the wage earner) invest money and the other (the homemaker) invest sweat equity. Upon dissolution of the partnership, the the partner that invested work had a valid claim in the assets. Both partners had an incentive to work together.

Shannon Love|8.18.08 @ 11:19AM|#

ktc2,

Like most modern institutions, modern marriage law rewards the biggest jerk. Given the adversarial nature of the trail system, the spouse willing to use the harshest tactics will prevail. Everyone can tell horror stories of exploitation in a divorce because nothing in the modern system penalizes people for being viscous or rewards those seek an equitable arrangement.

Episiarch|8.18.08 @ 11:21AM|#

It would if you also could simultaneously eliminate the power of "extorted" over the "extorter". If not, then you have one spouse at the economic mercy of the others.

You only have one spouse at the "mercy" of the other if they do not work.

Both partners had an incentive to work together.

So sign a prenup. You seem to want this traditional marriage forced on people, when they can have it if they want it.

|8.18.08 @ 11:23AM|#

One question: did anyone notice that the "intimate partners" are measured to have had reduced domestic violence when divorce laws were relaxed? Since these folks are not married, doesn't that tend to disprove the causation? Easier divorce reduced violence for those who could use it (the married)... and for those on whom it had no legal applicability at all (just living together)? Something's missing here...

|8.18.08 @ 11:38AM|#

We can trade no-fault for at fault divorces. It would be good for those shining example of altruism, the divorce lawyers. It would also be a net positive for those role models, private investigators.

It would only be a negative to the people whose marital dreams have already been ruined and their offspring.

Duh!

Shannon Love|8.18.08 @ 11:43AM|#

Episarch,

You only have one spouse at the "mercy" of the other if they do not work.

There is usually an asymmetry in economic potential and it gets worse when women have children. Marriage contracts should recognize this inherent asymmetry. Traditional law, which evolved over many centuries did. Modern law, based on the guesswork of a single generation does not.

You seem to want this traditional marriage forced on people, when they can have it if they want it.

Actually, I favor privatizing the whole matter. However, right now, it is a government concern. People have their marriage contracts rewritten without their consent by the courts and the legislatures.

Most marriage law today is based on fanciful notions of human behavior. It's nice to adopt a fairy tale in which people only need love to make a relationship work but in reality, people need incentives to behave nice. Otherwise, you create a circumstance in which the most selfish behavior creates the most reward.

As in most modern altering of tradition, we base our decisions on self-flattering models of how we think we will behave instead of looking for empirical evidence of how people actually behave. Since no one wants to think of themselves as selfish and exploitive, we tend to create laws based on the idea that people won't be selfish or exploitive.

anarch|8.18.08 @ 11:51AM|#

It's nice to adopt a fairy tale in which people only need love to make a relationship work but in reality, people need incentives to behave nice. Otherwise, you create a circumstance in which the most selfish behavior creates the most reward.
Why don't friendships need supervision?

|8.18.08 @ 12:00PM|#

joe's posts are one of the things that prevent this forum from reading like the Daily KOS for libertarians. I appreciate that and like my views challenged vigorously and often. If somebody disagrees, well, you can shut the hell up, libtard.

Episiarch|8.18.08 @ 12:00PM|#

Actually, I favor privatizing the whole matter.

Good, but why do you want to make divorce harder for people? Sounds like you're saying "well, if it's going to be state-sanctioned, we might as well create incentives for the way I want it to be".

Which would be typical social conservative bullshit.

RobL|8.18.08 @ 12:08PM|#

Most marriage law today is based on fanciful notions of human behavior. It's nice to adopt a fairy tale in which people only need love to make a relationship work but in reality, people need incentives to behave nice. Otherwise, you create a circumstance in which the most selfish behavior creates the most reward.

As in most modern altering of tradition, we base our decisions on self-flattering models of how we think we will behave instead of looking for empirical evidence of how people actually behave. Since no one wants to think of themselves as selfish and exploitive, we tend to create laws based on the idea that people won't be selfish or exploitive.

I'd counter you're being far too generous. Marriage law today is a farce designed specifically to facilitate income transfers to women (alimony, and in most states excessive child support), and enrich the family law bar. Creating rational incentives has been the last thing on any legislator's or judge's mind.

Scott66|8.18.08 @ 12:10PM|#

"Children living with a divorced or unwed single parent are more likely to fall into poverty, sickness, and crime than other kids."

Actually this is true for single mother headed families but not single father headed families.

As far as balance, it does not exist. The courts are heavily biased in favor of women which is why women file around 70% of divorces, win the vast majority of child custody disputes, and is the reason you can only quotes stats about reduced suicide in women but not men.

Shannon Love|8.18.08 @ 12:45PM|#

anarch,

Why don't friendships need supervision?

The institution of marriage, in all cultures, evolved around children. Cultures evolve protections to ensure that pregnant women and children have some means of support. The cost of childbirth and child rearing is significant. Contractual obligations prevent women and children from being exploited and abandoned.

Shannon Love|8.18.08 @ 12:51PM|#

Episiarch,

Good, but why do you want to make divorce harder for people?

I don't. I merely point out that many of the ideas that support/ed retroactively altering marriage contracts are not supported by the evidence.

Sounds like you're saying "well, if it's going to be state-sanctioned, we might as well create incentives for the way I want it to be"

Making it a state matter forces me as a citizen to become involved. People are altering traditional forms based active arguments of the greater good. In other words, everyone involved is altering the laws as they see fit to fit their own preconception of the optimal state.

Since many of the consequences of these decisions are socialized, I have to have a say in them whether I would like to or not.

Mad Max|8.18.08 @ 12:52PM|#

"Wolfers and Stevenson say that in no-fault states, there was a 10 percent drop in a woman's chance of being killed by her spouse or boyfriend."

I see that I'm not the first poster to ask questions about that statistic.

How would no-fault divorce reduce the number of boyfriends killing their girlfriends? Unmarried girlfriend/boyfriend combos aren't covered by the divorce-laws, by definition. So how could the supposed incentives which no-fault divorce gives men not to kill their wives trickle down to unmarried couples?

The more relvant question would be about husbands killing their wives - are fewer of them doing so because they can divorce their wives in lieu of kiling them? Why stir boyfriends into the mix - why contaminate the data with irrelevant material?

Going by statisics, women are safer with husbands than with boyfriends, if the question is avoiding being killed.

Paul|8.18.08 @ 12:57PM|#

No fault divorce. Riiight. Now let's move onto another hot topic: community property states.

Oh yeah, this'll be fair. What we'll do is just divide everything up in half, reduces all the wrangling. Efff you, community property.

If you live in a community property state, and you're thinking of getting married, let me give any of you one tiny piece of advice:

Marry Up and if at all possible, run up some debt right before the marriage.

This way, when you get divorced, you take half his assets and you hand him half your debt. It's really quite brilliant.

Paul|8.18.08 @ 1:06PM|#

As the Executive Director of The Center for Good Things that People Want, we are lobbying lawmakers to equalize the field of marriage by making heterosexual marriage illegal.

With this proposal, three issues are solved:

1. Gays and lesbians are now treated equally under the law.
2. Divorce is eliminated.
3. Our members, when pressed to get married can reply: "I'd love to marry you babe, it's just not legal"

This gives people a safe shelter in which they can remain free from the rigors of divorce and failed marriage.

Dagny T.|8.18.08 @ 1:48PM|#

There is usually an asymmetry in economic potential and it gets worse when women have children. Marriage contracts should recognize this inherent asymmetry.

What about situations where the woman makes more than the man?

Or, even simpler, what about the fact that women are fully aware of the cost/benefit analysis vis-a-via the choice to have a child, and make their decision accordingly? Does having a uterus exempt one from the ramifications of one's choices?

Laws that purportedly "help teh vulnerable women" really just reify our status as such.

Dagny T.|8.18.08 @ 1:49PM|#

*vis-a-vis

Paul|8.18.08 @ 1:54PM|#

What about situations where the woman makes more than the man?

She gets the children, the money, half the property, and child support from the ex-husband (a.k.a. "sperm donor")

Does saving a uterus exempt one from the ramifications of one's choices?

Sometimes, yes it does.

Episiarch|8.18.08 @ 2:01PM|#

Paul, you sound a little bitter. Messy divorce?

Scott66|8.18.08 @ 2:06PM|#

"are fewer of them doing so because they can divorce their wives in lieu of kiling them?"

For men, no. For women, yes. Because the laws are written and interpreted for the benefit of women there has been a reduction in wives killing their husbands. Women can now escape a marriage they no longer want to be in. However, there has been little decrease in husbands killing their wives becuase the unbalanced laws keep men trapped in marriages they no longer want.

LarryA|8.18.08 @ 2:30PM|#

I find it difficult to believe that people actually think "I was going to cheat on my husband or beat the shit out of my wife but with no fault divorce they could leave me so I better not do it."

OTOH the "You're my wife so you belong to me and have to take what I dish out" theory was pretty debilitating before women had the choice to leave.

If you control for variable such as starting income, education, ethnicity etc, people who remain married out perform those who divorce even though they have earning potential.

People who have the skills to remain married year after year will handle most other social activities easily.

Weakened marriage contracts make the economically or otherwise dependent spouse more vulnerable to exploitation because laws have simultaneously reduced the claim that one spouse has on the income of the other.

Under the stricter divorce laws many states had, the woman had no claim on her husband's income. In earlier times, whatever income she earned belonged to him. If the marriage became intolerable she had the choice of "running off," which left her with no income and a shredded reputation, or suicide. Under many of these laws it was also much easier for a husband to dump his wife than vice-versa. In many states it was sufficient for the husband to allege that his wife had refused sex, and in many it was also not illegal for a husband to rape his wife.

|8.18.08 @ 3:05PM|#

"prevent" abuse? abusers "policing" themselves?

There is no evidence for either. Please try not making wild assumptions.

It is just as likely that, instead of preventing abuse, the women and men leave these relationships. They still got married to the idiot in the first place and suffered abuse (i.e. it wasn't prevented), but now the ones that can bring themselves to leave do so.

This would result in a lower % of reported incidents of abuse because those people aren't in those relationships anymore.

Paul|8.18.08 @ 3:37PM|#

Paul, you sound a little bitter. Messy divorce?

No, a relatively clean one. I married someone with $60,000 in student loan debt and not an asset to her name and a low income. She married me with no debt, a house, higher income, a reasonable 401k and a car. I live in a community property state. I can't imagine how ugly it would have been had she gotten nasty. She agreed that she wouldn't go after everything out of fairness. *wipes brow* It was only then I realized how bad a community property state is.

I got off lucky, and with a new appreciation for prenuptual agreements...especially if you're not wealthy.

In the words of poet Chris Rock:

If you got $20 million and she gets $10 million, you ain't starvin. But if you got $30,000 and she gets $15,000?

Paul|8.18.08 @ 4:01PM|#

OTOH the "You're my wife so you belong to me and have to take what I dish out" theory was pretty debilitating before women had the choice to leave.

Any man who's married now knows this has been turned on its head.

In my circle of friends, there are two types of men: divorced and whipped.

But I ain't bitter or nothin'

ellipsis|8.18.08 @ 4:38PM|#

Cohabitation is probably the best way to go. It's common enough now that the woman will be agreeable to it, even if she's somewhat religious. And worse case is child support payments if there are kids involved and the relationship breaks up.

Cohabitation is as close to a relationship free-market as you're going to get. If a break-up happens, the courts aren't involved. It allows a 50%/50% share in the relationship process. It can account for human selfishness.

I'd guess that the reason most relationships fail is because there's nothing in common after the lust and emotion subside. Even after that, there comes a time when there's non-emotional compatability but the tempation to change and fix the other person kicks in. If there's no marriage, there's no inbalance in one partner trying to fix the other. The leverage of no contract prevents one party from trying to push the other too far.

The funny thing is, I know quite a few Evangelical Christians that cohabitate, so it's benefits apparently are filtering down to even those who think it's a sin.

dhex|8.18.08 @ 4:59PM|#

Any man who's married now knows this has been turned on its head.

you need new friends, cause i call bullshit on this one.

marriage is beautiful. well, my marriage is.

Paul|8.19.08 @ 3:28AM|#

marriage is beautiful. well, my marriage is.

Exaaaactly.

Wicks Cherrycoke|8.19.08 @ 5:18AM|#

"If either partner can demand a divorce, each has a greater incentive to keep the other content. If an abused spouse has an open exit, some abusers-and potential abusers-will find it possible to behave themselves.

"By assuring both people in a marriage that they can get out if things go badly, the looser laws can foster the sort of behavior needed to make sure things go well. Just as a driver in a small car will drive more cautiously than someone in an oversized SUV, couples faced with loose divorce laws may handle their family obligations with greater care."

Maybe the explanation is simpler - that there is no need to resort to abuse, murder or suicide when you can simply leave.

Adam|8.19.08 @ 7:48AM|#

So, better to live in misery with someone you can't stand than to call an end to it, and meet someone you may be more compatible with, huh?

Sorry. I don't buy it!

|8.19.08 @ 11:09AM|#

I've never been married or had kids either one, and I think it has saved me a bundle.

Know what the #1 cause of divorce is? MARRIAGE.

|8.19.08 @ 1:09PM|#

Given that in many states mental or physical cruelty was grounds for divorce, I fail to see how no fault divorce somehow leveled the playing field. I would suspect greater enforcement of domestic violence laws, coupled with greater education of potential abused spouses can claim greater credit for these reductions.

|8.20.08 @ 6:31PM|#

It's amazing that as many marriages succeed as do. How many things have you done in your life that you get right the very first time? Still own the first car you ever bought? First house? Hold the first job?

Divorce, done in a civil cooperative manner, can allow two people who really just aren't that happy together anymore to divvy up the stuff and move on.

How many investments would you make if you were never allowed to change your mind and cash out to reinvest in something else? Well, your time on this earth is capital, of a sort, and you only have so much of it. Where are you going to spend it?

Now whether divorce causes social harm ... is, in my mind totally irrelevant. It permits a certain social liquidity that allows the maximization of happiness. Because we don't all always get it right the first time.

|8.21.08 @ 1:21PM|#

The anger and bias expressed in so many of these comments simply reinforces that the law has to at least try to be fair (as in no-fault divorce) because people seem all but incapable of fairness, particularly in emotional matters.

Lost Dad|8.24.08 @ 3:08AM|#

My youngest child turned 18 a year and a half ago. I am still paying support on ALL 5 of my kids.

I haven't seen them since the day my ex-wife's boyfriend left his wife to move in with my wife and kids, courtesy of a court order keeping me away from then for the months that it took to convince the kids that _I_ was the problem (not their mother's cheating and illicit pregnancy).

Ah, the power of brainwashing. My ex kept telling the kids how much nicer it was, now that the arguments were over (we argued about her cheating on the marriage), and now that there was so much more money in the household (her pay, much of my pay, and the boyfriend's pay).

I'm grateful to the guy, though. If he hadn't knocked my wife up, I probably would have stayed married to her and tried to make it work, despite her affairs. Now I'm with someone far better.